Does Unified Communications Defy Definition? Huh?
For some time it has been popular to rant about the lack of a definition for the growing Unified Communication space. In fact, so much so that it has almost become cliché to say “there is no cohesive Unified Communications definitions.” Well, I’m not going to say it any more…. At least without providing concrete reasons for why I this is the case.
To read more about why check out this TMCnet article.
Quick summation: Part of the problem is that some obvious prerequisites for the UC vision have not been met from an open, standards perspective, i.e., “federated presence” across enterprise and service provider networks. The other part of the problem that scaresIP management is how to start a UC migration selectively, yet be “future-proofed” for the new capabilities that UC might offer, especially in a mobile, device independent world.
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
BoingBoing
Furl
Spurl
- Related Entries
Listed below are links to sites that reference Does Unified Communications Defy Definition? Huh?:
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/mt3/t.fcgi/35353
Previous blog:
Polycom's Schooling the Global Unified Communications SpaceUnified Communications Home Page
Next blog:
Leveraging the IMM Platform
Rick McCharles :
March 3, 2008 10:09 PM
Hype and lack of UC definitions have been a pet peeve of mine for a while. I have defined UC as:
An evolving communications technology architecture which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context, and with a common experience. Its purpose is to optimize business processes and enhance human communications by reducing latency, managing flows, and eliminating device and media dependencies.
I entered this definition in Wikipedia and so far it has stuck.
Some may find it inadequate since it doesn't mention IP, VoIP, IP Telephony, Unified Messaging, Presence, SOAP, XML, etc, etc. In my view, all of these are components and enablers which may, or may not, be part of a UC solution.